2009-10-10

Fundamentally, it's a statement of gratitude for America opting to end the Bush years, spare the world a continuation of Republican belligerent provincialism, and rejoin the reality-based community of nations.

Yes Harold, the award should go to the American electorate for turning their backs so very emphatically on the dark and harrowing years of conservative grhhhargleblargle9-11!RAWWWRRR-a-blart. Except that you morans were the ones that caused this mess in the first place. And don't give me no guff about how Chimpy never actually won any elections, 49% of you voted for him in 2000, and then even more of you did the same thing in 2004 after you got a taste of his incompetent and damaging "strong leadership".

But that's okay. You managed to figure it out - taking neo-cons out of the policy-making levels of the world's remaining superpower is a huge step forward for peace.

Robinson:

Others say the award is “premature.” Okay, I can see that argument, but the Nobel committee apparently considered Obama’s redirection of American foreign policy toward multilateralism a groundbreaking accomplishment. The committee, it seems, thought that for the most powerful national leader in the world to embrace international cooperation and envision a world no longer menaced by nuclear weapons was a giant step forward. I can see that argument, too. In fact, I think I agree with it.

This. If only he added that the "redirection" isn't an easy thing, then it would have been perfect. Because, make no mistake, simple and plainly obvious things like actually attempting diplomacy instead of labelling random countries "evil" and building up military presence at their borders - that is frowned upon in the USA. I mean, in the name of the Invisible Pink Unicorn (blessed be her unsee-able obviousness) - the US is still a country where "anti-war" is used as an insult. Truth of the matter is that America has an intensely bloodthirsty militaristic culture. War, and all that goes with it is glorified and held in high esteem. Negotiating, talking and not immediately reaching for your biggest gun is seen as "ghey" or naive or traitorous or, more likely, all of the above.

Marcus:

Please. This turns the award into something like pee-wee soccer: everybody wins for trying.

Yes Ruth. Because pursuing peaceful resolutions is so very easy in the US. Because America is so very supportive of not bombing people.

Obama gets the award for, what, a good nine months? Or maybe a good two weeks -- the nominations were due Feb. 1.

Well, nominations and final decisions don't happen at the same time, that "two weeks" talking point is a clear attempt to misdirect people. But I'm feeling generous and I'll let that slide. Let's take your obviously false premise as true and run with it. What the hell did Obama do in two weeks that earned him a Nobel Peace Prize?

HE REPLACED THE ADMINISTRATION OF GEORGE W. BUSH.

Pull your head out of your ass long enough to recognize this: George W. Bush and his administration was the single-most destabilizing force in the world. His idea of international co-operation was recess appointing John Bolton as your Ambassador to the UN. Saber-rattling wasn't the default position of that Administration, it was their concession position after realizing that they probably couldn't get away with yet another regime changing invasion. Nevermind the attitude taken towards international agreements, refusals to ratify measures the rest of the world thought beneficial for global peace and prosperity - those things pale before the fact that for years, the US military had more kills than the rest of the armed forces in the world combined. And that a lot of people in the US are proud of that, some of them writing in the very same space as you *cough*Bill Kristol*cough*.

Well anyways - let's "look forwards not back" and see what else you have to offer:

If the Nobel Committee ran out of worthy candidates, it might have engaged in a bit of recycling. Nothing wrong with a second prize to Aung San Suu Kyi (1991).

WTF?!?! You spent the entire column complaining about how Obama hasn't achieved anything yet, about how pre-mature it is to give him any awards, about how his winning the Nobel Peace Prize is "ridiculous" - and your suggestion is to go with a second Nobel to Aung San Suu Kyi?

I don't mean to say anything negative about the dear aunt, but do you even recognize how incredibly stupid what you're saying is? It's your position that the prize should go to someone for their achievements - not for "just trying". And while bringing democracy to Myanamar is a noble and worthy goal - Aung San hasn't quite achieved that, now has she? Seriously, I respect her for her principled stand and her perserverence to her convictions, but I can't even begin to see how you could argue that a second Peace Prize for her would be about "doing, not being".